Moore v. City of Shafter Corrections et al
ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed on her Eighth Amendment Claim Against Defendant Arton, and Dismissing all other Defendants and Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/28/2017. City of Shafter Corrections terminated.(Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTY V. MOORE,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ON HER EIGHTH
AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT ARDON, AND DISMISSING
ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS
(Doc. No. 16)
Plaintiff Christy V. Moore is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of this court.
On January 27, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and ordered
plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or a statement of willingness to proceed only on her
claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs
against defendant Officer Ardon, which claim the magistrate judge found to be cognizable. (Doc.
No. 11.) On March 15, 2017, plaintiff filed a response indicating that prison personnel did not
deliver the screening order to her until March 7, 2017. (Doc. No. 12.) The court construed
plaintiff’s notice as a request for an extension of time to respond to the court’s order and granted
plaintiff until June 1, 2017, to file an amended complaint or a statement that she wished to
proceed only on her cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 13.) The court further indicated that plaintiff’s
failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action proceed only
on her Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Officer Ardon. (Id.) Plaintiff never filed a
response of any kind to the magistrate judge’s orders.
On July 5, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
recommending that this case proceed only on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against
defendant Officer Ardon as found cognizable in the January 27, 2017 screening order. (Doc. No.
16.) The findings and recommendation were served that same day and provided plaintiff with
twenty-one days in which to file objections. (Id.) To date, plaintiff has not filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1. The July 5, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Officer Ardon for
deliberate indifference of plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and
4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?